A bill to authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 for mental health courts through fiscal year 2011.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Clinton, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Leahy, Senator Akaka, Senator Boxer, and Senator Corzine, to introduce the ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act.'' Today marks the 12th anniversary of the enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This landmark legislation was nearly a decade in the making, but today, more than 50 million Americans have taken leave under FMLA.

Despite the many Americans the Family and Medical Leave Act has helped, too many continue to be left behind. Too many continue to have to choose between job and family. The facts are clear: millions of Americans remain uncovered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. And too many who are eligible for the Family and Medical Leave Act cannot afford to take unpaid leave from work. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'', which we are introducing today addresses both these problems.

The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' would expand the scope and coverage of FMLA. It would fund pilot programs at the state level to offer partial or full wage replacement programs to ensure that employees do not have to choose between job and family.

Times have changed over the years. More and more mothers are working. While decades ago only a tiny fraction of mothers with infants under one year of age were working, in 2004 about 55 percent of mothers with infants were working. Even as employment rates within this group rises, family responsibilities remain constant, a reality that lies at the core of the FMLA. According to an employee survey by the Department of Labor, about one-fifth of U.S. workers have a need for some form of leave covered under the FMLA, and about 40 percent of all employees think they will need FMLA-covered leave within the next 5 years.

According to a Department of Labor study in 2000, leave to care for one's own health or for the health of a seriously ill child, spouse or parent, together account for almost 80 percent of all FMLA leave. Approximately 52 percent of the leave taken is due to employees' own serious health problems, while 26 percent of the leave is taken by young parents caring for their children at birth or adoption.

The FMLA requires that all public sector employers and private employers of 50 or more employees provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for medical and family care reasons for eligible employees. About 77 percent of employees in the private and public sector currently work in FMLA-covered sites, although only 62 percent of employees are actually eligible for leave.

However, only 11 percent of private sector work sites are covered under FMLA. Individuals working for smaller private employers deserve the same work protections afforded to other employees. As a step toward expanding protection to more hard-working Americans, this bill would extend FMLA coverage to all private sector worksites with 25 or more employees within a 75-mile radius. This would mean that an additional 13 million Americans would be eligible for leave under the Act--roughly 240,000 in my own State of Connecticut.

Mothers and fathers, adult sons and daughters have the same family responsibilities and personal health problems, regardless of whether they work for the government, a large private enterprise, or a medium- sized private business. Expanding the FMLA to businesses with 25 or more employees is a crucial acknowledgment of this reality.

The bill recognizes the enormous physical and emotional toll domestic violence takes on victims. The bill expands the scope of FMLA to include leave for individuals to care for themselves or to care for a daughter, son, or parent suffering from domestic violence.

Expanding the scope and coverage of FMLA is a positive step for many Americans. But, alone, it is not enough. According to a Department of Labor study, 3.5 million covered Americans needed leave but--without wage replacement--could not afford to take leave. Over four-fifths of those who needed leave but did not take it said they could not afford unpaid leave.

Others cut their leave short, with the average duration of FMLA leave being 10 days. Of those individuals taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, nearly three-quarters had incomes above $30,000.

While the financial sacrifice is often enormous, the need for leave can be even more so. Every year, many Americans bite the bullet and accept unpaid leave. As a result, nine percent of leave takers go on public assistance to cover their lost wages. Almost twelve percent of female leave takers use public assistance for this reason. These individuals are far from being unwilling to work. Instead, they are trying to balance work with family--often during a crisis, too often with inadequate means to get by.

Other major industrialized nations have implemented policies far more family-friendly to promote early childhood development and family caregiving. At least 128 countries provide paid and job-protected maternity leave, with an average of sixteen weeks of basic paid leave. In 1992, before we enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act, the European Union mandated a paid fourteen-week maternity leave as a health and safety measure. Among the 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the average childbirth- related leave is 44 weeks, while the average duration of paid leave is 36 weeks.

Compared to these other developed nations, the United States is far behind in efforts to promote stronger families and worker productivity. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' builds on current law to provide pilot programs for States and the federal government to provide for partial or full wage replacement for at least 6 weeks. At a minimum, this will ensure that parents can continue to make ends meet while taking family and medical leave.

When we talk about a more compassionate America, nowhere is that more evident than in our caregiving leave policies. No one should have to choose between work and family. Women and men deserve to take leave when family or health conditions require it without fear of losing their job or livelihood. We must not simply pay lip service to family integrity and the promotion of a healthy workplace.

We talk often of our need to strengthen family values. We cite studies about the importance of the first few months of a newborn's life. This bill offers more parents the opportunity to spend time with their families when their families most need them.

I urge my colleagues to support the ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' to promote our family values and to ensure the welfare and health of hard-working Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a brief summary of the Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise and am joined by my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Lieberman, Sarbanes, Landrieu, Dayton, Levin, Lautenberg, Inouye,

Corzine, Durbin and Akaka to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to improve access to higher education for low- and middle-income students by raising the authorized maximum Pell Grant to $11,600 within five years. This bill has the strong support of the Student Aid Alliance, whose 60 organizations represent students, colleges, parents, and others who care about higher education.

Pell Grants were established in the early 1970s by our former colleague, I Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island. They are the largest source of Federal grant aid for college students. For millions of low- and middle-income students they are the difference between attending or not attending college. But, unfortunately, they don't make as much of a difference as they used to.

In 1975, the maximum appropriated Pell Grant covered all of the average student's tuition, fees, room, and board at community colleges. It covered about 80 percent of those costs at public universities and about 40 percent at private universities. In 2003, the average Pell Grant covered 32 percent of tuition, room and board at community colleges, 23 percent of the total charges at public universities, and 9 percent of total charges at private universities. That's not just a drop, it's a free-fall.

For low- and middle-income families, the cost of college also has increased significantly as a percentage of income. College is getting farther and farther out of reach for an entire generation of students.

As a result of all this, low- and middle-income students who want to attend college are forced to finance their education with an ever- increasing percentage of loans as opposed to grants. This increases the cost of attendance for these students even more, and in many cases, keeps them from going to college at all.

For four years now, the Administration has not raised the maximum Pell Grant. On top of leaving millions of children behind by failing to meet the bipartisan promises of the No Child Left Behind Act, they have left even more children behind who work hard and do well in school and want to go on to college. If we're serious about leaving no child behind, if we're serious about having a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just rhetoric, then we need to reinvigorate the Pell program.

It has been said that investing in a student's future is investing in our Nation's future. We can start investing in our Nation's future by supporting this bill to increase the maximum appropriated Pell Grant to $11,600. This bill won't bring the Pell Grant's purchasing power back to where it was in 1975, but it is a critical first step, and I intend to continue my efforts on this matter throughout this Congress. I hope that my colleagues will join me.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Leahy and Domenici, to introduce a bill that would reauthorize ``America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act.'' This program addresses the impact that mentally ill offenders have had on our criminal justice system and the impact the system has had on the offenders and their special needs.

My interest in, and experience with this issue began over 30 years ago, when I was working as Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney in Greene County, OH, and then as County Prosecutor. What I learned then-- and what I have continued to encounter throughout my career in public service--is that our State and local correctional facilities have become way stations for far too many mentally ill individuals in our Nation.

A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 seriously mentally ill persons each year are booked into local jails, alone. In Ohio, nearly one in five prisoners need psychiatric services or special accommodations. As these statistics make clear, far too many of our Nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and jails. In fact, on any given day, the Los Angeles County Jail is home to more mentally ill inmates than the largest mental health care institution in our country.

How did we wind up in this situation? What happens is that all too often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail. They serve their sentences or are paroled, but do not receive any treatment for their underlying mental illness. Not surprisingly, they often find themselves right back in the system only a short time later after committing additional--often more serious--crimes.

Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by these individuals. Certainly, many mentally ill

offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. However, those who commit very minor, non-violent offenses don't necessarily need to be incarcerated; instead, if given appropriate treatment early, their illnesses could be addressed, helping the offenders, while reducing recidivism and decreasing the burdens on our police and corrections officials.

That is why, six years ago Senator Domenici and I introduced America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, to begin to identify--early in the process--mentally ill offenders within our justice system and to use the power of the courts to assist them in obtaining the treatment they need.

This program has been a success. In pilot programs around the country, mental health courts have begun to help local communities take steps toward effectively addressing the issues raised by the mentally ill in our justice system, and these steps must continue. The legislation that we are introducing today will help do that. Our bill would establish a Federal grant program to help States and localities develop mental health courts in their jurisdictions. These courts are specialized courts with separate dockets. They hear cases exclusively involving nonviolent offenses committed by individuals with a mental illness. Fundamentally, mental health courts enable State and local courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. These courts are designed to address the historic lack of coordination between local law enforcement and social service systems and bring them together to work within the criminal justice system.

To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these mental health courts are staffed by a core group of specialized professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public defender, and court liaison to the mental health services community. The courts promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant referred to the mental health court.

Mental health court judges decide whether or not to hear each case referred to them. The courts only deal with defendants deemed mentally ill by qualified mental health professionals or the mental health court judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill is voluntary; however, once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health Court, he or she is expected to follow the decision of the court.

For instance, in any given case, the mental health court judge, attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. The court must then provide supervision, and quickly deal with any failure. This way, the court can quickly deal with any failure of the defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. The mental health courts provide supervision of participants that is more intensive than might otherwise be available, with an emphasis on accountability and monitoring the participant's performance. In this sense, the mental heath courts function similarly to drug courts.

Offenders with a mental illness who choose to have their cases heard in a mental health court often do so because that is the first real opportunity that many of these people have to seek treatment. A judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment-- rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for rehabilitation to these defendants.

The successes of mental health courts are encouraging and show that we can improve the health and safety of our communities through these programs. In Ohio, the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Board which serves Athens, Hocking and Vinton Counties, began operating its program on August 2003 after receiving a mental health court grant under the original America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act. Success stories from this program are numerous, but let me focus on one individual here. D.L. is a 53 year old man who struggled with Bipolar Disorder for years. Arrested for trespassing in 2003, D.L. was the ideal candidate for the Mental Health Court. Having completed individual counseling, and never missing a single psychiatric appointment, D.L. completed the program last May. He is now viewed as a potential mentor for other program participants.

Many jurisdictions across America have established mental health courts as a result of the program that we established four years ago. Our Nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities remain challenged by difficulties posed by mental illnesses.

Mental health courts offer a solution.

Mental health courts have shown great success, and we must ensure their continuation. Our Nation has long been enriched by the dual ideals of compassion and justice, and these programs are a wonderful embodiment of both ideals. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Leahy and Domenici, to introduce a bill that would reauthorize ``America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act.'' This program addresses the impact that mentally ill offenders have had on our criminal justice system and the impact the system has had on the offenders and their special needs.

My interest in, and experience with this issue began over 30 years ago, when I was working as Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney in Greene County, OH, and then as County Prosecutor. What I learned then-- and what I have continued to encounter throughout my career in public service--is that our State and local correctional facilities have become way stations for far too many mentally ill individuals in our Nation.

A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 seriously mentally ill persons each year are booked into local jails, alone. In Ohio, nearly one in five prisoners need psychiatric services or special accommodations. As these statistics make clear, far too many of our Nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and jails. In fact, on any given day, the Los Angeles County Jail is home to more mentally ill inmates than the largest mental health care institution in our country.

How did we wind up in this situation? What happens is that all too often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail. They serve their sentences or are paroled, but do not receive any treatment for their underlying mental illness. Not surprisingly, they often find themselves right back in the system only a short time later after committing additional--often more serious--crimes.

Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by these individuals. Certainly, many mentally ill

offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. However, those who commit very minor, non-violent offenses don't necessarily need to be incarcerated; instead, if given appropriate treatment early, their illnesses could be addressed, helping the offenders, while reducing recidivism and decreasing the burdens on our police and corrections officials.

That is why, six years ago Senator Domenici and I introduced America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, to begin to identify--early in the process--mentally ill offenders within our justice system and to use the power of the courts to assist them in obtaining the treatment they need.

This program has been a success. In pilot programs around the country, mental health courts have begun to help local communities take steps toward effectively addressing the issues raised by the mentally ill in our justice system, and these steps must continue. The legislation that we are introducing today will help do that. Our bill would establish a Federal grant program to help States and localities develop mental health courts in their jurisdictions. These courts are specialized courts with separate dockets. They hear cases exclusively involving nonviolent offenses committed by individuals with a mental illness. Fundamentally, mental health courts enable State and local courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. These courts are designed to address the historic lack of coordination between local law enforcement and social service systems and bring them together to work within the criminal justice system.

To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these mental health courts are staffed by a core group of specialized professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public defender, and court liaison to the mental health services community. The courts promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant referred to the mental health court.

Mental health court judges decide whether or not to hear each case referred to them. The courts only deal with defendants deemed mentally ill by qualified mental health professionals or the mental health court judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill is voluntary; however, once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health Court, he or she is expected to follow the decision of the court.

For instance, in any given case, the mental health court judge, attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. The court must then provide supervision, and quickly deal with any failure. This way, the court can quickly deal with any failure of the defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. The mental health courts provide supervision of participants that is more intensive than might otherwise be available, with an emphasis on accountability and monitoring the participant's performance. In this sense, the mental heath courts function similarly to drug courts.

Offenders with a mental illness who choose to have their cases heard in a mental health court often do so because that is the first real opportunity that many of these people have to seek treatment. A judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment-- rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for rehabilitation to these defendants.

The successes of mental health courts are encouraging and show that we can improve the health and safety of our communities through these programs. In Ohio, the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Board which serves Athens, Hocking and Vinton Counties, began operating its program on August 2003 after receiving a mental health court grant under the original America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act. Success stories from this program are numerous, but let me focus on one individual here. D.L. is a 53 year old man who struggled with Bipolar Disorder for years. Arrested for trespassing in 2003, D.L. was the ideal candidate for the Mental Health Court. Having completed individual counseling, and never missing a single psychiatric appointment, D.L. completed the program last May. He is now viewed as a potential mentor for other program participants.

Many jurisdictions across America have established mental health courts as a result of the program that we established four years ago. Our Nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities remain challenged by difficulties posed by mental illnesses.

Mental health courts offer a solution.

Mental health courts have shown great success, and we must ensure their continuation. Our Nation has long been enriched by the dual ideals of compassion and justice, and these programs are a wonderful embodiment of both ideals. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a long list of colleagues in introducing a bill to extend the MILC program. This measure is supported by members from different regions of the country and both political parties. This broad base of support is a clear indication of this issue's importance.

MILC, as most of my colleagues know, is the program created in the 2002 Farm Bill after a very painful battle over the Northeast Dairy Compact. Many recall what a difficult time that was, with one group of dairymen pitted against another. I don't want to revisit that time. The MILC program bridged a bitter regional divide by providing a critical safety net when prices are low. And when prices rebound, the MILC program becomes dormant and costs nothing. The problem with MILC is that it expires on September 30 of this year--two years before the rest of the Farm Bill.

In addition to the cosponsors, MILC extension is supported by sixteen governors, including the governors of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, Vermont, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Maine, Iowa, Michigan, New York, South Dakota, Ohio, Louisiana, and North Dakota. Moreover, the President of the United States committed himself to MILC extension during the presidential campaign.

I am hopeful the President's budget will include MILC extension when we receive it next Monday. That would be a helpful next step. But the fact of the matter is that budget resolutions never get signed into law in and of themselves. They are merely a framework for further discussion and work. And it will take effort both from Congress and the administration to see this extension translated into law. I look forward to working with the President and his new Secretary of Agriculture to make sure that happens.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senator Snowe to reauthorize funding for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This successful Commerce Department program, based in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is a nationwide network of Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers working with small- and medium-sized manufacturers in all 50 States. These local centers have played a critical role in helping our manufacturers turn out the most advanced products, using cutting edge technology and processes, to prevent these firms from being forced out of the global marketplace.

My State of Wisconsin is a great manufacturing State. Small- and medium-sized manufacturers and a few larger concerns make us the State economy most dependent on manufacturing--save Indiana. Thus, I am keenly aware of the devastating job losses experienced by American manufacturers. In Wisconsin alone, we lost more than 90,000 manufacturing jobs over the last four years.

While 2004 brought encouraging news in which we saw a net gain of 3.1 percent or 15,400 manufacturing jobs in my State, this pace of economic growth will never bring us back to where we were before.

That is why I am committed to doing all I can to help our manufacturers. And that is why I am such a strong supporter of the MEP program, one of the only Federal programs which has provided tangible assistance to the manufacturing sector to help companies stay in business and retain jobs. The MEP program served 18,422 manufacturers in fiscal year 2003 alone, and over the life of the program has assisted more than 184,000 firms across the Nation.

MEP's top areas of assistance are process improvement, quality inspection, business system and management, human resources, plant layout and manufacturing cells and product development. MEP streamlines operations, integrates new technologies, shortens production times and lowers costs, leading to improved efficiency by offering resources to manufacturers, including organized workshops and consulting projects. MEP removes the drag on profits and maximizes the potential of our manufacturing firms.

Wisconsin is the home to two MEP centers which have both had a significant impact on the productivity of companies throughout the State. Since 1996, Wisconsin MEP has helped over 1,300 Wisconsin manufacturers improve their productivity and profitability. Over that time WMEP customers have reported a positive impact of nearly $400 million in improvements attributable to the assistance provided by MEP. And, since 1994, the Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center, targeting the more rural northwestern part of the State, has provided over 3,189 technical assistance activities to over 942 companies, created or retained 1,979 jobs, and achieved client-reported impacts of over $132 million.

One of the novel aspects of the MEP program is that it is a Federal- State-private partnership. Federal funding leverages State and private funding. Manufacturers pay reduced fees for the services and States match the Federal funding. In many cases, the Federal component is only one-third of the funding for the program.

Although the MEP program has broad bipartisan support, with 55 senators writing a letter in support of the program last year, we have had to struggle in recent years to ensure that MEP centers receive the funding they deserve. In the last two years, the Administration has proposed deep reductions in the program that would have forced MEP centers around the country to close. In fiscal year 2004, despite Senate support for full funding for the MEP Program, funding was reduced by 60 percent from $106 million to $39.6 million. As a result, 58 MEP centers closed and staff was reduced by 15 percent. Working with several other Senators, we succeeded in having amendments adopted on the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization and appropriations bills to permit and direct the Commerce Department to reprogram unobligated funds to the MEP program in fiscal year 2004 to keep the MEP network intact. Fortunately, in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill, MEP received $109 million and was renamed the Hollings MEP program, in recognition of the strong support Senator Hollings gave this program during his tenure in the Senate.

Next week the President will be sending us his proposed budget for fiscal year 2006. I am deeply concerned at reports that indicate that the Administration intends to propose yet again to cut this vital program. We have introduced this legislation today as a sign that there continues to be bipartisan support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I hope that these reports were incorrect and that the Administration recognizes that we cannot abandon our small- and medium- sized manufacturers. They are the key to economic growth, good paying jobs, and a healthy balance of trade.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home State of Maine, particularly those in the hospitality sector that rely on these seasonal workers to supplement their local employees during the height of the tourism season.

On January 4, a mere 3 months into fiscal year 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, announced that it would immediately

stop accepting applications for H-2B visas because the annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas had been met. In other words, many employers who require temporary workers in the spring, summer, or fall will be unable to hire such workers because all 66,000 H-2B visas will already have been issued within the first few months of the fiscal year. Once again, Maine's employers will be left out in the cold, disadvantaged by their later tourism season.

Without these visas, employers will be unable to hire enough workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels. Last year, unable to locate enough American workers willing and able to take these jobs, and without temporary foreign workers to fill the gap, many business owners were forced to initiate stop-gap measures that were neither ideal nor sustainable in the long term. Many of these businesses fear that, this year, they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what is their busiest time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax revenue from those businesses. These losses will be significant, and they can be avoided.

This is why I am today introducing the Summer Operations and Seasonal Equity Act of 2005. Similar to legislation that I cosponsored last year, this bill would exclude from the cap returning workers who were counted against the cap within the past 3 years. Ths legislation also seeks to address the inequities in the current system by requiring that no fewer than 12,000 visas be made available in each quarter of the fiscal year. By holding back a limited number of visas for use in each quarter, we will ensure that employers across the country, operating in all four seasons, have a fair and equal opportunity to hire these much- needed workers.

We must act quickly on this legislation, however, or we will be too late to help thousands of American businesses that need our help now. We cannot be content to say: ``It's too late for this year; maybe next year.'' It is true that comprehensive, long-term solutions may be necessary, but we have immediate needs as well. This problem demands immediate solutions.

In my home State of Maine, the economic impact of this visa shortage will be harmful and widespread. When people think of Maine, what often comes to mind is its rugged coastline, picturesque towns and villages, and its abundant lakes and forests. Not surprisingly, tourism is the State's largest industry. Temporary and seasonal workers play an important role in this very important industry.

This is because, unfortunately, there are not enough American workers willing and able to fill the thousands of jobs necessary to provide the level of service that Maine's visitors have come to expect. Over the years, seasonal workers have filled this gap, becoming an integral part of Maine's tourism and hospitality industry. In fiscal year 2003, the last time Maine's employers were able to fully utilize the H-2B program, Maine employed more than 3,000 seasonal workers. The majority of these individuals worked in the State's resorts, inns, hotels, and restaurants. Many are people who have returned to the same employer summer after summer.

Let me emphasize that employers are not permitted to hire these foreign workers unless they can prove that they have tried, and failed, to locate available and qualified American workers through advertising and other means. As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred before CIS will process the visa applications. Therefore, unless and until more H-2B visas are made available, many of these jobs will remain unfilled and American businesses will suffer.

A similar situation faces Maine's forest products industry, which contributes approximately $5.6 billion annually to Maine's economy. In 2003, more than 600 temporary workers--mostly from Canada--were employed as forestry workers in Maine. Many work in remote areas of the State where there are not enough Americans able to take these jobs. By some estimates, these foreign workers account for as much as 30-40 percent of the wood fiber that supplies paper and saw mills throughout Maine and the Northeast. This number represents roughly 4.8 million tons of wood annually. With an already significant shortage in the wood supply, the loss of these temporary workers poses a serious threat to the industry and to Maine's economy. With fewer workers available to bring wood out of the forest and into mills, supplies will dwindle, prices will continue to rise, and mills may be forced to curtail production, or even temporarily discontinue operations. If this happens, it is American workers who may lose their jobs.

The effects of the H-2B visa shortage are not limited to the tourism and forest products industries, however. It will also be felt by fisheries and lobstermen, junior league hockey and minor league baseball teams. It will affect small businesses and large, visitors and locals, young and old, from Maine to Maryland, to Wyoming and Alaska.

The shortage of nonimmigrant temporary or seasonal worker visas is a problem that must be addressed, and soon. I believe that this legislation offers a workable short-term solution, and I urge us to move forward with this solution. We must resist the tendency to let this problem, and the people who are affected by it, become entangled in the larger debate about our Nation's immigration policies. This is not about the number of immigrants we should allow to come to the United States each year, or what to do with those who violate our immigration laws. It is about temporary workers who, for the most part, respect our laws, go home at the end of their authorized stay, and in many cases, return again next year to provide services that benefit our nation's economy. It is about American businesses that rely on these workers to take jobs that many Americans do not want. It is about the economic impact that will be felt across the Nation if these businesses are unable to hire temporary workers. We need to solve this problem now, before it is too late and our economy is harmed and jobs lost.